4 ms·

More breathless fawning rhetoric and nebulous jargon, but I guess the target audience is blockchain enthusiasts so that makes sense. At the end of the day it's

More breathless fawning rhetoric and nebulous jargon, but I guess the target audience is blockchain enthusiasts so that makes sense. At the end of the day it's their money, so what I do I care? I find it frustrating when I hear comparisons of the blockchain to internet and cellphone communication platforms. The potential use cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication) and available on day one, compared with blockchains which has given us bitcoin and nothing else of unique value. I actually think bitcoin is pretty damn cool and a marvel of software engineering, but it's a fact that it's mostly useless for the vast majority of people and certainly not in any way comparable to the impact of cell phones or THE LITERAL INTERNET; the insinuation is absurd and intellectually lazy based on blockchain's track record. > We believe that just as the last three megatrends -- mobile, social, and cloud -- intersected and reinforced each other, so will the next three megatrends -- next-gen computing devices, AI, and crypto. This kind of rhetoric inspires derision.

bredren 8y ago
>The potential uses cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication) and available on day one, compared with blockchains which has given us bitcoin and nothing else of unique value. Bitcoin has unquestionably provided folks looking to work outside traditional financial systems (and governance) value. You can see it in the black market use and its use in ransoming everything from Game of Thrones to hospital records. It was used this way almost from day one. Also, the use of smartphones as this "instant remote communication" doesn't begin to describe where the technology led, which was to the smartphone which is some type of multimedia device capable of far more than its initial concept. It doesn't hurt to be skeptical of rhetoric, but you don't make a stronger point by downplaying the difference in value between when cellphone launched and what cell phone technology offers today.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > Bitcoin has unquestionably provided folks looking to work outside traditional financial systems (and governance) value. You can see it in the black market use and its use in ransoming everything from Game of Thrones to hospital records. It was used this way almost from day one. Yes, I covered that when I said the blockchain gave us bitcoin, and that's all it's done as far as unique value. > Also, the use of smartphones as this "instant remote communication" doesn't begin to describe where the technology led, which was to the smartphone which is some type of multimedia device capable of far more than its initial concept. So what? My point is that "instant remote communication" was a communication revolution that did not need to hunt for use-cases, the technology itself was inherently useful and it developed into something more because its ubiquity (a result of its near universal utility and appeal) created a market for competition between selling this device that literally everyone wanted. The blockchain is not at all comparable to this. Most people can't even understand what the blockchain is (and that includes many technical people) and those who can at least understand what the blockchain does mostly come to the conclusion that they don't really have a use case for it (including the large majority of enthusiasts who don't do more than shuffle bits around between arbitrarily delimited distributed spreadsheets). > you don't make a stronger point by downplaying the difference in value between when cellphone launched and what cell phone technology offers today. You're incorrect. The two have nothing to do with eachother. "Smart devices" like palm-pilots existed for a long time but never took off because most people couldn't justify the purchase (since it really didn't do much for them). Fast forward to a time when everyone is already carrying around portable network computers because... and here it is again... they were clearly useful in their communication capability... it was a clever but natural opportunity to replace these "dumb phones" with computing devices that resemble computer systems that were already validated by the desktop market.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  "Bitcoin has unquestionably provided folks looking to work outside traditional financial systems (and governance) value." It's also provided a modern day example of why many of those regulations exist.
tomerv 8y ago
Is there any logic whatsoever in talking about the intersection of AI and crypto (or AI and blockchain)? It seems to me that this intersection is very close to the empty set.
- root_axis 8y ago
  I agree. It is my personal opinion that all three terms are so vague that an intersection among them doesn't really mean anything.
- ehrtt 8y ago
  It's for when machines will need to pay other machines.
mgummelt 8y ago
> The potential use cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication) and available on day one. "Instant remote communication" is abstract. There was no consensus on the specific applications of the internet in the 70s. The same holds for blockchain. We know the applications are "trusted computing". We don't know what the specific apps will be.
- root_axis 8y ago
  > "Instant remote communication" is a abstract. 100% wrong. "Instant remote communication" is a clear and concrete use-case. > We know the applications are "trusted computing" The blockchain does not facilitate "trusted computing" in the abstract; it can produce some concrete software implementations that incorporate some aspects of "trusted computing" (i.e. cryptocurrencies) but the blockchain has not been demonstrated to be useful in any other "trusted computing" scenario.
  - mgummelt 8y ago
    It's not concrete when there are many specific use cases that fall under that umbrella. Telephony is one, for instance, and it predates the internet. And do you not consider smart contracts to be non-currency trusted computing applications of the blockchain?

bredren 8y ago

>The potential uses cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication) and available on day one, compared with blockchains which has given us bitcoin and nothing else of unique value. Bitcoin has unquestionably provided folks looking to work outside traditional financial systems (and governance) value. You can see it in the black market use and its use in ransoming everything from Game of Thrones to hospital records. It was used this way almost from day one. Also, the use of smartphones as this "instant remote communication" doesn't begin to describe where the technology led, which was to the smartphone which is some type of multimedia device capable of far more than its initial concept. It doesn't hurt to be skeptical of rhetoric, but you don't make a stronger point by downplaying the difference in value between when cellphone launched and what cell phone technology offers today.

root_axis 8y ago
> Bitcoin has unquestionably provided folks looking to work outside traditional financial systems (and governance) value. You can see it in the black market use and its use in ransoming everything from Game of Thrones to hospital records. It was used this way almost from day one. Yes, I covered that when I said the blockchain gave us bitcoin, and that's all it's done as far as unique value. > Also, the use of smartphones as this "instant remote communication" doesn't begin to describe where the technology led, which was to the smartphone which is some type of multimedia device capable of far more than its initial concept. So what? My point is that "instant remote communication" was a communication revolution that did not need to hunt for use-cases, the technology itself was inherently useful and it developed into something more because its ubiquity (a result of its near universal utility and appeal) created a market for competition between selling this device that literally everyone wanted. The blockchain is not at all comparable to this. Most people can't even understand what the blockchain is (and that includes many technical people) and those who can at least understand what the blockchain does mostly come to the conclusion that they don't really have a use case for it (including the large majority of enthusiasts who don't do more than shuffle bits around between arbitrarily delimited distributed spreadsheets). > you don't make a stronger point by downplaying the difference in value between when cellphone launched and what cell phone technology offers today. You're incorrect. The two have nothing to do with eachother. "Smart devices" like palm-pilots existed for a long time but never took off because most people couldn't justify the purchase (since it really didn't do much for them). Fast forward to a time when everyone is already carrying around portable network computers because... and here it is again... they were clearly useful in their communication capability... it was a clever but natural opportunity to replace these "dumb phones" with computing devices that resemble computer systems that were already validated by the desktop market.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
"Bitcoin has unquestionably provided folks looking to work outside traditional financial systems (and governance) value." It's also provided a modern day example of why many of those regulations exist.

tomerv 8y ago

Is there any logic whatsoever in talking about the intersection of AI and crypto (or AI and blockchain)? It seems to me that this intersection is very close to the empty set.

root_axis 8y ago
I agree. It is my personal opinion that all three terms are so vague that an intersection among them doesn't really mean anything.
ehrtt 8y ago
It's for when machines will need to pay other machines.

mgummelt 8y ago

> The potential use cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication) and available on day one. "Instant remote communication" is abstract. There was no consensus on the specific applications of the internet in the 70s. The same holds for blockchain. We know the applications are "trusted computing". We don't know what the specific apps will be.

root_axis 8y ago
> "Instant remote communication" is a abstract. 100% wrong. "Instant remote communication" is a clear and concrete use-case. > We know the applications are "trusted computing" The blockchain does not facilitate "trusted computing" in the abstract; it can produce some concrete software implementations that incorporate some aspects of "trusted computing" (i.e. cryptocurrencies) but the blockchain has not been demonstrated to be useful in any other "trusted computing" scenario.
- mgummelt 8y ago
  It's not concrete when there are many specific use cases that fall under that umbrella. Telephony is one, for instance, and it predates the internet. And do you not consider smart contracts to be non-currency trusted computing applications of the blockchain?